ROBINSON v. USA

Filing 8

UNREPORTED ORDER granting 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose of dismissing the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (dls) Copy to parties.

Download PDF
0mnffiEruAt lJn tW @nftr! btutts [.ourt No. l5-147 (Filed: March 30, of 201 5) KENNETH E. ROBINSON /rluul @[ufrns FILED MAR S0 2015 'Hii;83J8ffi Pro Se Plaintiff, THE TINITED STATES, Defendant. ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Plaintiff Kenneth E. Robinson filed this ple-qe case to challenge his "illegal conviction" in North Carolina state court.r According to plaintiff, after his first trial ended in a mistrial, he was tried for a second time and convicted. Plaintiff alleges that the trial couft failed to include the ftanscript ofhis first trial in the record for his direct appeal of his conviction, in violation ofthe Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff claims that the "act of the trial court [was] structural error requiring automatic reversal." Compl. 2. For the reasons stated above, the court finds I Plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma oauperis is granted for the limited purpose of dismissing the comolaint on iurisdictional erounds. that it does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff s collateral challenge to his conviction. Therefore, the court now dismisses the complaint sua sponte under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Before proceeding to the issues presented by Mr. Robinson, the court must first determine whether it possesses jurisdiction over Mr. Robinson's complaint. Whether the court possesses jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case is a threshold matter the court must decide. See PODS. Inc. v. Porta Stor. Inc', 484 F.3d 1359' 1364 (Fed. Cir' 2007) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83,94-95 (1998). Jurisdiction is a threshold matter because a case cannot proceed if a court lacks jurisdiction to hear See Arbaugh it' v. Y & H Corp, 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) ("[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety." (citation omitted)). When considering whether to dismiss a complaint for lack ofjurisdiction, a court assumes that "the allegations stated in the complaint are . . . true." Folden v. United srates, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Shearin v. United States,992F.2d 1195, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). A pro se plaintiff, such as Mr. Robinson, is entitled to a liberal construction ofthe pleadings. See. e.g., Erickson v' Pardus, 551 U.S 89, 94 (2007). However, a plq_qe plaintiff "is not excused or exempt from meeting jurisdictional requirements." Johnson v. United States,469 F. App'x 884, 886 (Fed, Cir. 2012) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795,799 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The burden is on Mr. Robinson to establish that this court has iurisdiction to hear his complaint. See M. Maropakis Carpentrv. Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323,1327 (Fed. Cir' 2010) (citing Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. ,846F.2d7 46,'748 (Fed' Cir. 1988)). Construing Mr. Robinson's claims liberally and taking the facts as alleged as true, Mr. Robinson fails to state a claim over which the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction. It is well-settled law that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over due process claims under the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because that clause is not money mandating. see Allen v. united states, 546 F. App'x 949,951(Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Because Mr. Robinson alleges only "violations of constitutional rights that lack money mandating provisions," Johnson v. United states, 411 F. App'x 303,305 (Fed. Cir.2010), this court lacksjurisdiction. Therefore, because this court lacks jurisdiction over the allegations in Mr. Robinson's complaint, his claim must be DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?